If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

FS2004 Vs FSX

Above all, do not speak very much English
Dear Friends of Flight Simulator. We all know that the FSX version, for many is not viable for the following reasons: Not everyone has a super machine to handle the graphics of this version, in my case (and many), buy a computer with the required specifications for FSX not is possible, however, I have a DualCore machine with 3.8GB memory of 2GB and a 1GB video card and is not possible to get what I get with FS9. They should make an Update for FS9 that includes some of the FSX features such as road traffic and the effects of rainwater on the concrete. I keep the FS9 and think much population would me in this restlessness. I am a virtual pilot since 1998 and I think it would be fair to Bill Gate. Armando Sandrea - Venezuela

A mod capable of giving FSX level graphics in FS9 would no doubt require an FSX capable computer to run it. But better meshes (payware or freeware), Ultimate Terrain, and Ground Environment Pro will make a significant improvement for relatively little cost. REX gives improved sky, cloud, and water textures (some prefer Zinertek water); add photoreal airports for areas you frequent, and I think you'll be pleased with how FS9 looks.

I think people need to keep things in perspective. Flight Simulator 9 or X is not a multi million dollar simulator. For the price and the addons, I think it is a fantastic package. I am amazed at the programming talent displayed by both amateur and professionals in this field. I started with the very first FS. Its hard to believe how far it has come.

billwhite is entirely correct. Flight Simulator (9 and X) is a fantastic package which allows us to emulate real flight in our homes in a very realistic simulation of flight, with real-world locations and geography, real-world aircraft, and real-world flight dynamics. For what it is, at its price, it is fantastic.

FS9 is what it is - and we who use it improve it with various add-ons, both freeware and payware. For many of us who have major investments in upgrading our FS9's this way, it would be a "downgrade" for us to abandon FS9 and start with FSX. We would have to spend a lot of money all over again buying add-ons for FSX to increase the realism factor. For me, that's never going to happen. FS9, with all my improvements, is just fine for me. For me to consider upgrading to a new flight simulator, the realism factor of the new offering would have to be a giant leap from where FS9 and X are now.

Purchasing the correct add-on software can make FS9 look as good as FSX is out of the box. No, you are never going to get an update for FS04 or for FSX.

With the right add-ons, FS9 looks better than FSX out of the box in my opinion. The only worthwhile things in terms of looks that a default FSX brings to the table to compete against a souped up FS9 is the road traffic, water and extra visibility layers, and that is not enough. A default FSX installation doesn't even have one default airport that looks better than the dozens of payware offerings available for FS9.

I've flown FS since 1988,wnen FS was at version 3. I also bought another sim called Flight Assignment A.T.P. (Airline Transport Pilot) which had a selection of commercial airliners for the user to learn on. The manual was a great tuition tool in flight theory, flight physics and aircraft controls. That was made by a company called Sublogic. It was far superior to FS3 in many respects, and had add-on scenery etc available for it. Like FS3, it too ran under DOS. The first really decent version of FS came along in the shape of version 5, which was still a DOS program, but would run in Windows. ATP didn't move on beyond one more version, but FS continued to improve. I kept screen shots from the various versions with a Cessna landing at the default (now closed) Chicago Meigs Field, with each picture showing the graphical improvements that evolved along the way.
However, in my opinion, FS9 is still the best there is from Microsoft. It's been around for so long that there are endless add-on aircraft, scenery and hardware available for it. I even seem to recall an add on that added working railways to one of the versions of FS.
In contrast, whilst FSX has lots of eye candy, that's about as far as it goes. The quality of the graphics of the default aircraft has degraded from those of FS9. It's become more like an X-Box game, in fact, I fully expected the next version to be released for the X-Box. I am a fan of flying the sim in the most realistic way possible and I've found that this just isn't possible with FSX at the moment and I'm not about to shell out about £1500 or more for a computer that will run FSX and it's add-ons at an acceptable standard.
My current setup is:
Athlon II X3 445 3.1GHz CPU on an ASUS mobo, with 8Gb of DDR2 RAM and a GeForce 460GT graphics card (1Gb on board). Sound is via a new Soundblaster Audigy (well, it was new a year ago).